Appearance Is Ideology

Daryush "Roosh" Valizadeh created ROK in October 2012. You can visit his blog at RooshV.com or follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

You can easily predict the ideology of someone on the liberal-conservative spectrum by how they look. This is universal not just in Western countries but also in more traditional parts of the world.

Liberals tend to be ugly, fat, and with low muscle mass when compared to the societal average. I don’t claim this to cause insult, but it’s clear that liberalism is an ideology that attempts to take from the strong, beautiful, and talented to give to the ugly, weak, and talentless. If you are strong yourself, you would not want to involuntarily donate the fruits of your labor to those who are weak, especially if they are outside of your tribe, meaning that average or below average individuals naturally gravitate towards liberalism.

If a woman is ugly or fat, she wants social policies that allow her to get more attention from elite males while less goes to women who are more beautiful or lovely than her. If you are a man who has puny muscles and testosterone levels, you will want policies that take from stronger men mostly out of your own jealousy and feelings of inferiority. You don’t want them to succeed because of abilities, talents, or attributes they have that you don’t.

Most exceptions to this rule can be easily explained by income. If a man has small muscles but makes over $200,000 a year, he will lean conservative (unless he’s Jewish, where he will continue favoring liberal policies since they typically hinder anti-Semitism).

If a girl is not happy in life because she’s not getting attention from men, or has a boyfriend with an effeminate manner, she will most certainly be a liberal, even in foreign countries. I have never met a foreign woman rated an 8 or above that would share a feminist idea with me, but it’s quite common to hear them from 6’s in those same countries. Liberal thought promotes the mythical idea of human equality and helps boost her self esteem into incorrectly believing that she’s just as deserving of life’s benefits as a more beautiful woman with better genetics or upbringing.

The liberal mindset doesn’t only affect mate competition, but also any sort of contest where naturals or talented individuals can beat those lacking in talent. For example, in a particular social group I was involved in, I repeatedly won a certain contest. After an unprecedented winning streak, two unattractive individuals in the group wanted to formulate a rule to specifically exclude me from competing because it was “not fair” that I kept winning. One mentioned that if she was in charge of voting, she would declare someone else the winner even if I did actually win. The lens through which a liberal views those who are better than them is to exclaim “It’s not fair!” followed by rules or policies to unfairly handicap those who are better.

If you’re not a winner, you will not support an ideology which allows winners to keep the bulk of their winnings. While I would in no way assert that American conservatives (Republicans) are winners, or even true conservatives, it’s clear that American liberals have gravitated to their ideology because it promises a social climate where their low talent, low beauty, and low muscle features are not seen in a negative way. They become “equal” to those who are obviously superior in intelligence, appearance, talent, or wealth.

It’s not uncommon for a man, as he improves himself in business and also increases his sexual market value, to gravitate from the left to the right side of the political spectrum. Otherwise, he would be going against his interests to share his hard-fought gains with those who did not work as hard as him. Therefore to understand where people fall on the political spectrum, simply look at them.

If the girl is unsightly, she’s a liberal. If she’s beautiful, she wants to be rightly rewarded for that beauty, and so will have more traditional beliefs where men undertake high mating investment to be with her. If a guy is also ugly in the sense that he’s ugly to women (has low testosterone, small muscles, low game skill, low confidence), he is also a liberal. This shortcut will make it very easy for you to identify who to avoid and who to admit into your circle of friendship.

Submit an article for ROK and get paid

Starting in March, we will pay you in Litecoin cryptocurrency for any article of yours that we publish. If you have something to say to your fellow man, now is a great time to do it. Click here to learn all the details.

If you’re not a winner, you will not support an ideology which allows winners to keep the bulk of their winnings.

Disagree with this, at least in regard to men. Most men don’t mind that another man can beat them at something. I couldn’t play football if you paid me two billion dollars a game (I’d still play though, because two billion dollars), but that doesn’t mean that I believe men with real talent at the game should not be able to keep 100% of their winnings. Yes, that’s 100%, no tax. Because they earned it. Men respect strength, it’s how we organize actually, how we establish hierarchies amongs ourselves, in a way that women simply can not grasp at a deep level.

As to spotting conservative vs. leftist women, I do tend to agree. Very few stunningly beautiful *well kept*, stylish women will ever come at you as a “feminist”. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that at all in my lifetime. Fuglies, almost universally have some bright flashing SJW tells.

Agree entirely and with the OP. Two examples look at conservative commentator from UK Louse Mensch she is feminine and attractive. Now hazard a guess what the leader of the hard left green party in the UK Natalie Bennett looks like? I won’t ask you to Google her it will spoil your lunch.

True because all woman ugly or beautiful will at least verbally say they support causes for women, so yeah I have seen a few trophy bitches talk up feminazi horse-shit. But one never sees these 8, 9, and 10+ beauty scale bitches at slut walks. Most of the females that attend and get naked are the last type of chicks anyone would want to see with their clothes off.

With respect to the 8,9’s and 10’s. When it actually gets down to parting with the nice car, seeing the bank account get nailed for a few thousand in taxes, or doing something with the unwashed masses, it’s full stop. Reality has a convenient way of interrupting fantasy.

You are absolutely correct with regards to left leaning good looking women, except as others have said they are not really leftists at all. I left the army to attend college as a mature student. Can’t tell you the amount of times; I had some vacant ‘Sociology’ type tutor or similar cooing over me, running her fingers through her hair and asking me ‘tell me about the army then’? This happens because they are surrounded by either gay or blue pill men. I got bored with them after time, feminine traditional types held a better conversation, were less self interested and just better company full stop.

She’s absolutely awful, terrible nasal twang and deeply unpleasant looks, opinions and policies. She’s Australian, but saw fit to tell the British electorate in the run up to ANZAC day, how they should ditch HM the Queen. Think she got about 40 votes nationally in the end.

This is actually how Army should work, without females we have no troubles to follow natural born/decided leaders.

The second they allow chicks into army the moment we start fighting over her, no matter how ugly she is there will always be contest.

Can tell this from my experience from Czech Army when I was in BCT before Military university, needles to say that I failed and left before I could repeat classes I failed at BCT.

Still at last it was my “zero fucks given” attitude which girls admired openly, everyone else was eating that pussyfied training like some real shit.
But hell I would return to Army the second the Czech Army stop being underfunded and pussyfied.

I encountered feminism in the army when I did my junior leadership course (to get promoted to master corporal). The instructors were rather open about the fact that the word came down from above and they were goosing all the girl’s task scores and otherwise going easy on them. They put all the girls in one section so the guys could not compare their performance to their own. The one girl actually capable of pepper-potting 150 metres with an M249 got stuck with the machine gun every fucking time because none of the other chicks could.
.
In the end, there were two courses running and both top candidates were girls.
.
For my part, there was an administrative clerk who washed out and we ended up as staff for the rest of the summer. . .so I fucked her. A funny story in its own right.

I find this term “Liberal” to be a very strange one. There does not seem to be any firm definition of it. And of course it used to mean a person who believes in limited government. Nowadays we seem to use it to refer to socialists.

I actually think it is a trick by socialists to market themselves using a term that (used to) has positive connotations. After all, how can you disagree with someone behaving liberally? See the dictionary definition:

adjective: liberal
1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.
2. (of education) concerned with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

Doesn’t sound bad does it? They also use other equally politically meaningless terms such as progressive, modern, etc.

Lets not play this game with them. Lets call them what they are. Socialists. Don’t worry, they won’t deny it.

I’ve noticed that too. More and more it is coming to mean only some lefty leaning anti-drug war yahoo. While I’m all about eliminating the WOD, that’s not the fullness of libertarian by any stretch. Yet so many I’ve encountered these days who say “libertarian” are pro-pot, and only pro-pot. Ask them about taxes, guns, the 4th amendment, the 10th amendment, etc. and they are either ignorant of these topics or hostile towards them. At least as I’ve noticed here in the States.

I had started to lean towards Libertarian back in 1996 after reading Harry Browne’s book. I believe that the Feds should stay out of a lot of things and states have their own laws regulating stuff. It irriates me how the Feds use extortion to get states to conform like hold funding for highways if they raise the speed limit from 55 mph (remember that from the 70’s?). Now it’s adopting common core for K-12 schools.

These new gun control laws from the Federal level will create a new “Confederate” states just like how it was during the Civil War.

“These new gun control laws from the Federal level will create a new “Confederate” states just like how it was during the Civil War”

It depends whether or not they get the governor of a state in their back pocket. I recall a somewhat ‘showdown’ between the governor of Arizona and Obama over the Mexico / Arizona border crisis. The president was mandating that she back off and literally leave the border open, all the while Arizona had their prisons full of illegals.

I thought this showdown would be the catalyst to kick start our next civil war, but nothing came of it and nobody hears much lately about Arizona vs. Obama anymore.

Hmm…just reading up on Jan Brewer and she seemed to have rolled over to the left right before she declared not to run for office. According to Wikipedia, she vetoed a bill allowing business owners to refuse service to homosexuals. That doesn’t sound like that hard Jan Brewer I recalled hearing about.

No, he isn’t. Using “turned away at the border crossing” is how they got that number. He’s actually made it far easier for *illegal* crossings. The border check points are “legal” crossings, which he’s denying. In effect, he’s making things worse.

Won’t be any new gun laws. Obama’s hands are so hog tied that while he can push through a few meaningless executive orders he has almost zero ability to affect gun control in the nation. Thankfully. He can lobby like a mofo though, which will be likely what he does, all to no effect.

I read that obama was going to issue an executive order to close the gun show loophole. This worries me because I want to buy a gun but I have a misdemeanor conviction for drug possession on my record. you seem pretty knowlegdeable about guns, do you think this will prevent me from passing a background check?

But what can he do? To “close the gun show loophole” would require registration of firearms. Not only doesn’t he have that power, states don’t have it either (Illinois residents would be wise to challenge their FOID in court, they’d win).

The “gun show loophole” is already known as “private sales”. They can’t track those. Impossible. And if they order people to register, it will be disobeyd, and they know it. They don’t like to lose face.

My guess is that he’ll do the same meaningless impotent crap he did after Sandy Hook, which amounted to squat, and then move on to the next crisis he thinks he can take advantage of. Real change requires legislation, he can’t do that.

Sandy Hook. We spoke of government schools recently and this is another reason to abolish them. You are forced to send your defenceless children to an undefended building, staffed by defenceless people which is a lightening rod for nutcases who want to commit suicide and take a bunch of people with them.

Its well known in social science that publicizing these crimes actually causes more of them to happen. NO ONE talks openly about this. Its the moral equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Liberals eagerly jump on the wagon for taking away our second amendment rights, yet no one is clamoring to muzzle the reporters. I think the figures on suicide is that one well published suicide will cause 60 people to go out and kill themselves, who whould have otherwise gone on living. 60..I think that would qualify as a massacre.

The masses ain’t having it, if you go by state by state opening up of gun laws and the vast number of “chl” license holders. I think the days of scare tactics vanished when they found out that Sandy Hook was impotent in the face of our opposition.

Yeah, that’s funny too. But if he brought up eliminating the income tax or making all forms of gun carry legit under the 2nd Amendment without any government permissions they’d have a Going Ape Party in rage.

The income tax. What a continuing and unmitigating crime. And it gets worse every year. Not that they increase it (which generally they don’t) but the increase in personal information they want you to divulge. People worry about online stores collecting your purchasing preferences but the sheer quantity and increase detail of personal information you have to hand over to the government is appalling. And this is information that they can and will use to hurt you. This I believe was one of the main reasons why an income tax was opposed for so long.

Which is odd insofar as the income tax, at least as they describe it at the friggin’ IRS is “voluntary compliance”. Well, what if I don’t feel the desire to comply, it’s voluntary, so I don’t have to, right? Wrong. If they haven’t done so yet they need to eliminate that wording, it’s a bold faced lie.

The government is run by paranoid control freaks who have to know everything. Look at all the post 2001 laws because of “terrorism”. at the core it is all about monitoring and controlling the domestic population.

Years ago I stumbled onto an episode of Little House On The Prairie. Michael Landon is in line to pay his property taxes and chats with another guy in line, and it goes something like this:
One of these days the government will take your money just because you make a living.
You mean like an “income tax”? Nah, it will never happen.

I identify as a “Constitutional Libertarian”. Meaning, only supreme law. So, all these laws for our “safety” can kiss my rump. Speeding laws are the same as pot laws in my books. Unenforceable on a mass scale and are only used for revenue generation but you know…they are for our “safety”. And I am for the America freedom of choice. Meaning, if you want to smoke pot and you are not killing/physically hurting anyone while doing it, then so be it. But you need to accept the consequences. IE health consequences.

I fucking hate safety. Not interested. There a few things more insulting that you can say to me than “this is for your safety” like I’m a little girl of something. I can look after myself so fuck your safety!

The problem with the USC is that it was designed with its weasel words to produce an expansive government over time. At least the bill of rights was tacked on, that slowed it way down, but the articles of confederation were probably more compatible with a free society.

This is true as well. I think that had the AOC not been established immediately after a huge war where we incurred what was considered at the time massive debt, they would have worked out peachy. The entire reason it failed was the issue of raising funds to repay the war debt and to pay backpay to former soldiers.

Would that have kicked the can down the road? Yeah, I guess, eventually a big debt will come from somewhere, but it would have given the AOC time to cover those topics legislatively and in an orderly fashion without having to resort to a document that laid the groundwork for centralizing the government. If not for the BOR we would have gone the way of Britain long ago.

Im libertarian, but I’m convinced that people strongly tend to be liberal, which is essentially indian tribal life codified(social group social freedom complete control of finances). or conservative, which is essentially farming codified(sexual, social restraint, economic freedom). I want freedom both socially and economically…oddly its not a common belief.

Yes christianity is farming values, which go back at least 10k years. If you do a little research on original native american sexuality(not tribes that started farming), youll find that they acted like pornstars. Lots of incest and pedophilia as well(talking to a social worker in North Dakota). Interestingly they have a higher homosexuality rate, usually around 15% , which in my travels, every indigenous area the women complain about(no woman likes competing with a gay man).

It goes both ways: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32972880 . On the one hand there are rich people who call themselves Libertarians but only really want the government to stay out of their wallets; the thought of the government leaving druggies to get high in peace will drive them to clutch many of their valuable pearls. On the other hand there are the ‘Libertarians’ you alluded to: those who couldn’t care less how big the state is so long as they won’t get busted for blazing up. A real Libertarian will want the state to stay out of as many stashes as possible, whether that stash happens to contain money, pharmaceuticals or weapons.

In the 20’s, they used to call themselves Progressives amongst one of their top beliefs was eugenics. It wasn’t until after WWII that they changed their world view and started to call themselves, “liberals” to avoid the stigma of there afore mentioned collegues.

Anyone can see the hypocrisy in their way of thinking, in the 20’s it was a person’s nationality (eugenics), which was the cause of that persons inability to contribute to society. Fast forward to after WWII, and now it is not the nationality or person’s skin color that was the issue, but the racism of the people in our society.

History is funny like that, you find a lot of valuable information when you do your own research instead of regurgitating from a history textbook or what your profeasors tell you.

A key to restoring freedom is to diminish the power of the leftist media. In part this is happening since they are putting out more and more purely female — and not necessarily feminist — material, but there’s a long way to go.

The altright media on the Internet is also really helping. We have more right wing/libertarian online journalism and resource access today at our fingertips than I could have ever found back in my high school days even if I spent the entire week at the library. I think this is doing a *lot* to tip the scales in the other direction, which is evident in how much resistance has popped up to socialism since the 1990’s, despite it’s growth (inertia from pre-90’s) in this day and age.

I’ve identified myself as a “Classical Liberal” for a number of years. It always amazes me how often this description is misunderstood. I admit to being anachronistic. I refuse to allow the collectivists to bastardize my native language. In other words, “fuck them” it’s my language, too.

Same story from the left leaning crowd:
Change the meaning of words to suit them. You are correct that modern liberals are a far cry from the classical liberal. I am trying to get out of the habit of calling them “liberal” and using “progressives” instead as I believe it better describes the people in question.

Yes, and they are trying to redefine their crazies as regressives while still claiming the title of Liberal. They are socialist and straight communists tat have and still use the language to manipulate the arena. It’s kind of a modern day school/class of sophists.

I used to try to correct people when they incorrectly used the word liberal, or at least asked them “what do you mean by liberal”? but it got tiresome as 95% of people misuse the word, and within the last 2 years with the language being further coopted and perverted, I have decided just to humor them and use whatever word they are using. IE liberal will now mean socialist. Rape will now mean I did something (not necessarily sexual) that I didn’t want. Gender will now mean how do you feel today. etc.

Few people have any idea what it means. I have been called “liberal” on many occasions although I am neither a classical liberal or a modern one. To many, it simply means “someone who doesn’t agree with me”.

I used to do that too, then started humoring them by using “liberal” all the time, and now I’m being called out for using it incorrectly, which is true, but I’m just doing a common shorthand. Which frankly I should stop doing, given as I pitch a bitch over people using “clip” for “magazine” or “CCW” when they mean “concealed handgun license” or whatever.

The way I view it is yes, words have absolute distinct meanings, and the proper word should be used to communicate the desired idea. Precise use of language is vitally important in communication.

But on the other hand words are merely tools used for communicating with others, and when the vast majority of others aren’t going to understand you when you are using words correctly, then the entire communication is lost and *you* the speaker have failed to communicate your ideas to your audience.. In other words, the society has declined so much that we must dumb down the language. The guy in Ideocracy eventually just has to start using the words of the time like toilet water and shut up because “Why you talking like a fag?”

“Liberal” has become something of a dirty word. The recycled “progressives” from a century ago.
.
The modern liberal is characterized by a notion of liberty that comes at the expense of others and therefore must be implemented by an ever expanding state to tax and spend, redistribute wealth, or enforce laws to support those deemed to be disadvantaged while punishing those deemed to be at an advantage.

i see what you’re worried about, and i agree……..but that ship has already sailed……look at our collective leadership……”masculine” men are in a slim minority……..we have carnival barkers, showmen, and magicians running this show now, and the snowball just keeps getting irreversibly bigger………history is repeating itself, predictably, mr englishbob

i guess i mean we have weak leaders, and how you label them doesn’t matter…….when morals and character have decayed in past empires, they have fallen…….you can’t polish a turd, no matter how you want to describe it

I would tend to agree with you on the men/women tells regarding discerning their social views based on appearance. Personally, attending college blue pill indoctrinated me toward sympathizing with “liberal/progressive” ideologies and it took a long time 5o deprogram. I was, in retrospect, extremely low SMV at the time and at my small college, the meathead football players got almost all the play with the hot girls (football was king at this school); most of the other guys there got scraps. Meanwhile, even on a supposedly “conservative campus” (this was almost 20 years ago, before the apex of feminist rot), there were still more than a dozen womens’ organizations on campus with zero for men, aside from a few fraternities that I could see were already neutered..

“Very few stunningly beautiful *well kept*, stylish women will ever come at you as a “feminist”. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that at all in my lifetime. Fuglies, almost universally have some bright flashing SJW tells.”

Indeed.

The only time I saw some prettier looking chicks at feminist rallies was a few years ago when there was this big campaign in Ukraine to make the world more aware of sex tourism there. They had these slender, hot looking bitches in bikini’s with dollar bills in their mouths holding up a sign with some feminazi caption about “we are not prostitutes!”.

But many of my colleagues and I are speculating that all of these protests were staged / engineered and financed by American ngo’s, and the chicks at the events were of course paid to appear and take part. Then afterwards these super-model protestors went to work later that night at the brothels.

I am surprised no one has done an investigation on how involved NGOs are in this type of thing. The subversion of the more traditional societies is being carried out almost entirely by NGOs. There are billions of dollars flowing through these NGOs and with almost no accountability.

Men respect strength, it’s how we organize actually, how we establish
hierarchies amongs ourselves, in a way that women simply can not grasp
at a deep level.”

I agree.
Take the gym for example. I’ve lifted weights for over 15 years now on a regular basis. I’m stronger than a lot of people, but there is ALWAYS someone stronger than me. Do I hate or envy them? No. As long as they are doing things naturally, I admire them and their strength level becomes a goal of mine.

Time was, this was true of virtually all American men. It’s still true of most, but the margin is growing thinner by the year. Present trends continuing, “May the best man win” won’t hold sway much longer.

“Most men don’t mind that another man can beat them at something. I couldn’t play football if you paid me two billion dollars a game (I’d still play though, because two billion dollars)”

That’s winner mentality, right there. You can loose stuff but still have winner mentality, just like you can win stuff with looser mentality.
In the long run, those with winner mentality end up winning and the loser … lose

I think the point he was tryin’ to make is that a non winner wants a piece of the action, even if it hurts the alpha producers.

Enters the Taxman.

The richest would hardly advocate for greater taxes and state burdens on themselves. Its the bottom feeders who froth at the mouth for more of what they refuse to work to get( even though they could if they put in the effort)

In short, a lazy slacker wouldn’t mind a Ferrari, a more sensible man would think of the future.

I knew one girl who was hot, and became seduced by the dark side. She was Colombian, and paid her way through school working as a waitress. She actually made more money in tips than she sold in food(this in a low tipping country). But she was a psychologist, and that probably explains it. I mean if anyone benefited from the so called patriarchy it was her. Bite the hand that feeds you.

The “most” part is slipping due to the continued effeminization of men. “modern men” who “listen to wu-tang every week” and “are the little spoon sometimes” absolutely will act like crabs in a bucket and try to pull you down to their level.

Women actually do respect strength bur do not understand it because they have low muscle mass and are less in need to do any posturing or fighting so the only thing they see as a indicator of strength is height due to the unintended social conditioning of adults being taller than them and since adults are on average stronger than children so they see tall as being stronger regardless of what fighting experience they have

Most of the publicised feminist celebrities (only talking about the hot ones here, not the uggos) are usually Christian and conservative in reality but say they’re feminist and liberal for PR purposes.

I mean aside from Emma Watson who is a bit messed in the head, the other real hotties tend to be conservative and religious. Just they bullshit for media.

How do you explain Western Europeans? They are much more liberal than white Americans on average but also thinner and better looking. Or liberal Germans versus their poor and physically grotesque Syrian invaders?

I believe he’s likely writing from an Anglosphere only perspective. We’re the only culture that has really encoded and expanded an entire whole theory of individual rights into law in history, so other nations, such as, dunno, Italy will have varying mileage. In regards to the Anglosphere I think Roosh is basically correct.

Not so much, although they weren’t far off. The problem was the lack of rights for children and women (wait…I don’t mean in “that” way), insofar as paterfamilias could just lop off one of their heads at leisure under the right condition which rarely if ever involved actual self defense, which is wholly inconsistent with the whole “right to life” thing. They were also rather fond of cutting off certain individuals’ nuts for semi-trivial things (in the larger context for “trivial”). Plus, you know, slaves, which we eventually eliminated as the concept was in fact contradictory to human liberty, something the Romans never got around to. Etc.

You would enjoy JayMan’s and HBD Chick’s articles on outbred vs inbred cultures and how outbreeding was concentrated in certain parts of Northwest Europe i.e. WASPs. Outbred = Universalist, Clannish = More concerned about your family.

Many Americans are of Irish, Scottish, Italian and Eastern European descent which were more clannish cultures, as opposed to England, France and Germany, which is a theory as to why the US is more conservative. African-Americans are also more outbred than Africans, Hispanics and Asians.

Iranians don’t willy-nilly hate anybody. Have you actually asked one? What kind of bullshit nonsense is this that you spew???

Also @ghostofjefferson:disqus and @lolknee:disqus this is how it goes: Persians are an ethnic group of Iranian peoples (making up roughly 60% of Iran’s population today), much like Apache and Navajo are groups of Native American people. The borders of Iran have shifted so much over the centuries that different ethnic groups ended up in one empire or another (Arab Caliphate, Turkish Ottoman, Russian Tsarist, or any Frankenstein version of The Persian Empire through time). How “Persia” came into the English vernacular (and that of most Western languages) was through Greek, they called the land “Persis” meaning “Land of the Persians” who in antiquity controlled the rival empire to their East which had innumerable ethnic groups within. To the natives the land was ALWAYS called “Iran”, meaning “Land of the Aryans” (and anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that this words existed for millennia before 1933!). “Persia” as a vocabulary word has NEVER existed in the Iranian lexicon, it is strictly a Greek construct. This would be along the lines of how we say Germany for Deustchland or Finland for Suomi by using our own vocabulary word instead of that of the native speakers.

Sure, but I rarely if ever refer to a people by the name they call themselves. It would make trying to speak about AmerInds nearly impossible. And calling Germans “Deutsch” is clumsy in English, even though German is something they don’t call themselves.

No, but it does mean reflexively saying that you have had better hummus whenever you are given hummus to eat.

Also, is there even Persians anymore? Aren’t they just Iranian now? I am seriously asking, because it always makes me laugh when people say they are persian. Where the hell is persia.

I am not just saying this because I deny the existence of pretty much anything outside the borough of manhattan, I really want to know.

If there are still Persians, are there also Ottomans? Do they instinctively let you rest your feet on them? What about Prussians? Anyone here from Constentanople?

When I imagine a map of the world I pretty much thing of it like this
Any one who speaks spanish and is not from Spain is Mexican. I don’t have time for their fucking soccer teams. They are all mexicans.
All Asians are Chinese. I think I am only wrong in the margin of error here.
People who speak spanish and are from spain (like all people who speak romance languages) are French. Everyone else in Europe, non-city america, north of america and scandanavian countries are Game of Thrones. All of Eastern Europe is Soviet Union. Save a lot of time that way. American Cities that aren’t the borough of manhattan are “vacation.” Everything else is “uncharted territory.”

That would be a bit like Turkey changing its name to, hell pick a name, Boogerstan. I’d still refer to the people’s living there as Turks.

Lots of stuff about this hullabaloo over nomenclature that I find funny. Everybody, everybody, knows what I mean by Persian but I’m catching flack, heh. Internets, ya’ gotta love’it!

What about Prussians?

From that region, I’d bet that some of them (older folk or neo-nationalists) will tell you “yes” although no doubt they’d quickly append “but we’re all Germans”. Or not, who knows? Germany is so totally fucked up by political correctness these days that it’s almost surprising that they don’t issue an apology for their language on every traffic sign they print. (“We apologize for the German language and that “Halt” reminds you of the Nazis. Sorry. Anyway – Halt”)

When I was in Germany for a year about 2 decades ago one thing that struck me as odd was that there were a lot of hasidic jews at the top of the heroin biz….someone explained to me that the image of two german officers cuffing a hasid was simply not going to go over so they get away with murder. Not sure if that was (or if it was if it still is) true, but made sense to me.

Glad you liked the identity map. The best part about it is that I actually live my life that way and don’t really see an issue to it.

I am a life long New Yorker and I think what people don’t get is that, despite it being huge, NYC is a small town…worlds biggest small town. New Yorkers, myself included, have a small town mentality. The idea of going 3 miles south of my apartment uptown without being paid for it is simply insane. I am no different than someone on a small farm in montana. The outside world is bright and frightening. Other than the fact that I get everything delivered and can go out at 3 am on a tuesday and pick up toothpaste and stop and have a good scotch it is really the same as being on Bonanza.

Well, I wouldn’t go that far. It may be how you feel, but the personality types are entirely alien between NYC and most anyplace west of central Pennsylvania or south of Maryland. Small roam region no doubt, but an utterly different mindset. I say this as somebody who has been to NYC and to rural Montana (and Wyoming, and the Dakotas, and Nebraska, etc).

Other than the fact that I get everything delivered and can go out at 3 am on a tuesday and pick up toothpaste and stop and have a good scotch it is really the same as being on Bonanza.

Heh. Major things right there though, that breed an entirely different mindset. For example, if you can’t get ready food or supplies at 4:30am in the morning, you take a more long term plan approach to life (especially in Montana). Your entire reality is shaped by not getting what you want when you want, so you focus on planning and seeing things through as a matter of existence. If I don’t have to worry about any of my basic needs, if they’re always “right there” I’m entirely different from a person whose personality forms around “I need to be prepared because we can get snowed in for 4 straight months”.

correct about the mind set…i simply mean in the provincial not really fully understanding people outside my immediate area or even the existence of places like guam. I mean, what’s guam. I am sure people there know about it and some people who served in the army have been there, but seriously..guam? might as well be mars or, ya know, midtown for all i am concerned.

I really do like when someone corrects me about south american country when i refer to a person as mexicans (Mexicans has no singular i believe) and I reply, “whatever, no time for their soccer team. they are a mexicans”

I don’t even know why they bother naming some countries (let alone why some have two names). Does it really matter what they call themselves? So absurd. Kind of like during olympics when I found out that other countries have national anthems. Seriously? What the fuck is, say, khazakstan singing about? Or Albania? Seriously, they have a national anthem? What the fuck is it about? That time that someone raped a goat? The time someone didn’t rape a goat? Redic.

Swede chicks are gorgeous and have great DNA in general. It’s too bad that so many of eat up that whole “multiculturalism is good, native identity is evil” thing. But things are changing with the Sweden Democrats (nationalists) becoming the largest party.

a rare metabolic disorder characterized by a bronzed skin, cirrhosis, and severe diabetes, caused by the deposit in tissue, especially of the liver and pancreas, of hemosiderin and other pigments containing iron.

Because you are more susceptible to some diseases and not others is not a sign of some kind of over-arching failing. It’s life, it happens across the human genome depending on the race we’re talking about.

When people speak of superior with regard to the Scandis, generally they mean aesthetically pleasing. By any marker Scandis are generally very symmetrical, svelte with good breeding hips and nice bosoms, which are all indicators of genetic health that nearly all cultures looked for, except for a few in Africa (where they hadn’t gotten around to inventing writing or the wheel yet, and worshiped their matriarchal fat bitches).

“Because you are more susceptible to some diseases and not others is not a sign of some kind of failing. It’s life, it happens across the human genome depending on the race we’re talking about.”

No Haemochromatosis is a recessive genetic mutation. It is no different from sickle cell, tay sach’s or thalassemia and comes about from a dwindling gene pool that has no option but to inbreed – initially at a distance but eventually very close. This happens for a variety of reasons – geographic isolation for West Africa for example, or religious as is the case with Jew’s or Greek’s.

Not all populations have these conditions – West Indians for example have probably the widest most diverse gene pool on the planet, African Americans as well. You take the already diverse dna of the Celtic peoples (who descend from Jews believe it or not), mix it with West African, chuck in some Native American, Chinese and Indian, and you got Jimi Hendrix… None of the problems of Sickle Cell or Tay Sach’s manifest when one parent is of a different ‘race’.

“Because you are more susceptible to some diseases and not others is not a sign of some kind of failing. It’s life,”

Only if that life is absent of evolution. Remember it’s been billions of years allegedly.

“When people speak of superior with regard to the Scandis, generally they mean aesthetically pleasing.”

And in who’s opinion is that? Thats a VERY subjective thing.

“By any marker Scandis are generally very symmetrical, svelte, good breeding hips,”

Nope. Just plain opinion here again. I would LOVE to see some objective evidence for this claim. Sounds like old school sneak attack racism.

They are not breeding very successfully and this is maybe a more objective view. They do not have ‘strong’ DNA as the recessive genetic disorders demonstrate.

“which are all indicators of genetic health that cultures looked for”

Sorry no again. They are characteristics of the k selective female who carries a child in her womb for longer and who gives birth to babies with a larger head to body ratio at birth due to this longer carrying. And we can see how successful the Swedes have NOT been compared to say Muslims. Don’t know what fantasy logic you use to come to the conclusion of this being genetic health – r selective strategies are known to maintain better genetic health.

K is by no means superior as the results demonstrate (dwindling reproductive rates, genetic disorders, pussy-fication of males).

“except for a few in Africa (where they hadn’t gotten around to inventing writing or the wheel yet, and worshipped their matriarchal fat bitches)”

And this is just old school in yo face ignant racism.

A strategy that leans more to r (all human reproduction is relatively k) still has men at the heart of society. The family is just less dependant on him. Because the environment is easier.

The reality is that there are no superior genes – only superior combinations of genes.

What we know about the human immune system and the MASSIVE role it plays in sexual attraction confirms that mixing ‘races’ is far superior at the genetic level.

Think Cherokee and the common cold. And think how much ‘game’ really effects whether someone wants to bang you or not. Our nose does a lot of the game for us.

Not at all, that’s an old, discredited hypothesis that tried to link Celts to many cultures from whence they did not come. The Celtic cultures, people and languages arose from the insular Hallstat Peoples, who are distinctly Indo-European. Their language and mythologies are easily connected to the Indo-European tree by even trivial observation today.

Those unfamiliar with linguistics generally find Gaelic/Welsh/Cornish and their variants (p and q celtic languages) alien, when only a little investigation finds them heavily of Indo-European origin. To call them related to Jews is to imply a clear semitic link, of which none exist.

As to what is superior or not, I go only by what history has thus far demonstrated as far as technology, literature (or lack therof) and arts, civilization size and spread, influence on other cultures, etc. I’ll stick with those as my markers.

And in who’s opinion is that? Thats a VERY subjective thing.

Nope. Symmetry of features, fertile appearance and general health markers are universal measures of beauty across cultures and time, excepting some pre-literate matriarchal tribes in Africa, and we’ve all seen how far they’ve advanced.

“The Celtic cultures, people and languages arose from the insular Hallstat Peoples, who are distinctly Indo-European.”

Sorry my bad, Jews is the wrong term, Hebrews is a better word. And all Hebrew’s are essentially Central Asian in ancestry.

All Celts are essentially the lost tribes of Israel. They range from Central Asia to Ireland. They retain names, culture, language, etc. that all traces back to Babylon.

The tribe of Dan (whom had a tradition of naming places after themselves) left a clear trail from the Mid East up to Denmark entering the British Isles from the North later than…

…the Hebrew’s of the Iberian peninsular who entered way earlier from the South. The Hebrew pronunciation of the word Hebrew is ‘Ibri’ which is where the Iberian Peninsular (modern Spain, Portugal area) gets it’s name from. Hibernia (Ireland) and the Hebrides have a similar etymology.

This is a LONG time ago but it’s where the Celtic people come from – they all trace back to the Hebrew’s of the Mid East, who split into different tribes who went two ways. The Hallstatt people will have come from one of these groups so we are both right in a weird way – take note of the insular characteristic you mentioned – classic of Hebrew peoples and not something that comes naturally to people outside of religious systems.- because it is unhealthy.

You were too quick to throw away my credibility.

Maybe even eager…

I know this better than you because I am a Christian and I know the truth of human history and who I am.

Do you know who you are?

“Nope. Symmetry of features, fertile appearance and general health markers are universal measures of beauty across cultures and time,”

You miss my point. The idea that Scandinavians display higher rates of symmetry or fertility compared to the rest of the world is absolute rubbish and you know it. Iceland has a particular problem with inbreeding and has taken Orwellian measures to address this. Sweden is just a little further behind due to a larger population, but it’s been moving in that direction for a while.

I know you want to believe that the whiter the person the more beautiful and genetically ‘fit’ they are, but as I said, genes are only as fit as the genes they are combined with, provided those genes are different.

If your white supremacy was based on something worthwhile I’d respect it, but it’s based on very selective ‘research’ and emotionally inspired hypothesise and a VERY Eurocentric and Euro-glamorising understanding of history.

And a complete ignorance of the origins of humanity but thats another subject called Christianity.

They retain names, culture, language, etc. that all traces back to Babylon.

No, they retain the cultures and languages common to all Indo-European branches. This is not hard to see with even a smattering of linguistic experience. The etymology of the words in both p and q Celtic strains are nearly all Indo-European in origin, with the very small exceptions due to trading with other cultures (which exist in all Indo-European languages in one form or another, you know, chief?). The pantheon of gods worshipped pre-Christianity are all of similar functions, stories and traits. Deus is similar to Zeus and Dios-pater is similar to iu-pater (Jupiter) is similar to Lu (celtic) for a reason, they all have a similar root.

If you want to make a “Biblical” case then you’d be better to say that the Indo-European proto language comes from the Temple of Babylon ordeal. This proto-language, has been largely reconstructed based off of the similarities that all of the branch families share, which means that if it’s true for Celts, it’s true for Germanics, Italics, Slavs, Greek, Anatolian and other meta language branch families. To sort out Celtic singularly is to ignore a very hard set of evidence, again very plain to somebody with even a 101 level of knowledge about linguistics.

Do you know who you are?

Why yes, I’m a descendant of a Scot (Celt!) family and an English family. I know some Gaelic. Guess what? It has similarities in words, conjugation, pronouns, etc. to the rest of the European languages to the n-th degree. It’s easy to tell an alien language compared to the Indo-European tree, for example the Basque stand in very stark contrast to the IE languages, not to mention their culture and traditions, and they are firmly not in the IE family.

. The Hallstatt people will have come from one of these groups so we are both right in a weird way – take note of the insular characteristic you mentioned

First, Insular Celts is the trade word for “Celts that lived on the European continent around the time of the Bronze Age through the time of Rome, as opposed to the British isles”, it’s not a commentary on their social structure. Second, the Hallstatt people come from the original migration of Indo-Europeans into Europe, and their distinct branch of languages developed during the Bronze Age and are attested in writing not long after the Hallstatt folks (literally a few centuries) with the Lepontic celts.

Assume, that I’m knowledgeable in this area, that I’ve studied it out of a fascination for word etymology and cultures, is what I’m saying.

The idea that Scandinavians display higher rates of symmetry or fertility compared to the rest of the world is absolute rubbish and you know it.

We’ll pretend I’ve not been there, fair enough.

Iceland has a particular problem with inbreeding and has taken Orwellian measures to address this.

Iceland was nearly deserted for most of its history and has always had a small indigenous population (rather, small gatherings of Norse men and Irish women), so inbreeding problems are to be expected. Same with Amish. It doesn’t make your point.

VERY Eurocentric and Euro-glamorising understanding of history.

And a VERY strong set of observations about which societies, cultures and peoples have done the most for the human race, as compared to those who haven’t.

You seem equally invested in discrediting European peoples and cultures, going so far as to try to (humorously fact free) make them into Hebrews where you think you can get by with it. From any rational look at language and cultures, you claim is without even a shred of merit.

“No, they retain the cultures and languages common to all Indo-European languages”

As I said, the Hebrews are Indo-European. The ones that came to Europe are anyway.

“This is not hard to see with even a smattering of linguistic experience. The etymology of the words in both p and q Celtic strains are nearly all Indo-European in origin, with the very small exceptions due to trading with other cultures (which exist in all Indo-European languages in one form or another, you know, chief?). The pantheon of gods worshipped pre-Christianity are all of similar functions, stories and traits. Deus is similar to Zeus and Dios-pater is similar to iu-pater (Jupiter) is similar to Lu (celtic) for a reason, they all have a similar root.”

None of this was relevant.

“Do you know who you are?

Why yes, I’m a descendant of a Scot”

You misunderstand and then use many words to hide this. Becoming a pattern.

“Iceland is nearly deserted for most of its history and has always had a small indigenous population (rather, Norse men and Irish women), so inbreeding problems are to be expected. Same with Amish. It doesn’t make your point.”

The indigenous peoples of Iceland are not Irish. Please stop for your own sake. And Norse just means Northern. The Normans were from the North but were not Scandinavian. I know the history of my family name better than you do I’m sure.

“Assume, that I’m knowledgeable in this area, that I’ve studied it out of a fascination for word etymology and cultures, is what I’m saying.”

Assume that I am knowledgable in this area, that I have studied it out of more than a fascination for word etymology and cultures, but out of a fascination with God, human origins and the human journey, genetics, anthropology, ethnicity, language, race, health and wellbeing, and the study of disease prevention. And that I undertake this study with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

“We’ll pretend I’ve not been there, fair enough.”

We’ll pretend I’ve not as well. Nor have I dated a few Norwegian and Swedish girls. And we will pretend that neither of us remember the pussy-fide mummy’s boy men who’s ancestors didn’t leave with the Vikings for obvious reasons.

This is terribly week Ghost. Selective about your memories.

“And a VERY strong set of observations about which societies, cultures and peoples have done the most for the human race, as compared to those who haven’t.”

How do you determine that something has been done for the human race and that it’s better? This is baby brain logic. What part of the human race?

How can you know what is good for the human race if you do not know God?

“You seem equally invested in discrediting European peoples and cultures, going so far as to try to (humorously fact free) make them into Hebrews where you think you can get by with it. From any rational look at language and cultures, you claim is without even a shred of merit.”

And yet all you have is “we’ll pretend I’ve not been there” and “trust me I study language out of interest”.

There is clear and varied evidence of all white people coming from Hebrew’s. In fact, much of the British Empire was motivated by this fact.

No, the Hebrews are not Indo-European. They are a semitic people with a semitic language which is part of the afro-asiatic Tree, related to the Arabic and Egyptian peoples and languages. There were not at the time “Indo-European” Hebrews. That’s like saying that at the time there were Indo-Eueopean Koreans.

The indigenous peoples of Iceland are not Irish. Please stop for your own sake.

You’re not very well educated on this I’m afraid, so you might want to stow the condescension.. Their men test genetically mostly on the Norse side, while their women present the Irish genetic legacy if one is present in that particular family, for the most part. It’s well documented.

“History supports the idea that Iceland’s founders were more than just a couple of Vikings. About 60 to 80 percent
of the founders were from Nordic countries and the rest were Celtic stock from the British Isles.”

“The presence of Celtic stock among the first arrivals in Iceland is confirmed by numerous written references in both the Book of Settlements and the Book of Icelanders. In the former is found a comprehensive list of 400 names, of which at least 60 are distinctly Celtic. Though Irish female slaves were undoubtedly among the entourage of the very first
settlers, also included were Irish wives and servants acquired through decades of intermingling and intermarriage with the native Irish. Before these Norse Vikings even set sail for the north Atlantic, part of the Irish element among its number had already become largely integrated.

And Norse just means Northern. The Normans were from the North but were not Scandinavian.

Of course Norse has connection to their word for northern. In regards to the Danes that settled there. The Swedish were, at the time, basically loosely confederated with “Geat” (hence Gotland) as far as most people understood them, though they were many Scandi tribes that considered themselves distinct for a while.

First, the word “Norman” comes from Normandy, in France, which was a well documented Viking stronghold founded by Rollo (a Viking whose non-Anglicized name was Ganger-Hrólf) that later produced the Kings that would battle and overtake England. They were clearly Scandinavian.

The Finns and the Laplanders were known by name at the time, or at a minimum were all grouped together as Finns. Old English (anglo-saxon germanic) attests to this, which was contemporary with the Vikings aka Norsemen. Northmen means specifically “men from the North” in reference to the Scandinavians. Nobody else up there but the Finns and Laplanders, who again, were already known by name at the time we came to know “Norse” and “Northmen” in our languages. Of course there were the Rus (Russians) but they were also known by name, not “Norsemen”.

How do you determine that something has been done for the human race and that it’s better? This is baby brain logic. What part of the human race?

I consider modern technology a far better alternative than sitting in the mud dying of diseases carried by the numerous flies in one’s mud hut. Go figure.

I’m religious so you don’t get to pull the God bothering spiel on me. But that doesn’t mean that I try to rationalize away historical fact by trying to shove it into Biblical writing. One can be scientific and religious simultaneously, and I refuse to try to make the facts fit the Book which say *nothing* about Hebrews being Indo-European nor anything at all about any other thing you claim.

I’m not going to lecture you – I think you understand exactly the corner your in and your just writing stuff that is irrelevant, pointless or just exactly the same thing I just said. I’m introducing you to the ‘red pill’ history if you will. It hurts a bit like all red pills. You seem to only go back as far as suits your point.

Whites come from Indo-Europeans or Chino Europeans. The Hebrew peoples before they were Hebrew had come from Central Asia to the Middle East and then on to Europe. The term Indo-European misses the middle part thats all. You’ve missed this also. Two Caucasian groups left Central Asia, one with straight hair and bald bodies, one with curly hair and hairy bodies.

When the hebrew people scattered, two tribes stayed ‘Hebrew’ and became known as the Jews. They stayed faithful to God’s Law.

The other ten tribes for whatever reason distanced their Hebrew culture for the most part. They went on to live all over Europe with the two groups mixing in Europe but one coming form more North (scandinavia) and the other coming from the south (mediterranean) and Mid East.

If you separate white people from the ‘has body hair’ and ‘does not have body hair’ and research why this is you will understand a bit better. It has nothing to do with cold climates as you will see from where hairy whites actually come from.

Gene’s tell us more than language.

“First, the word “Norman” comes from Normandy, in France, which was a well documented Viking stronghold founded by Rollo (a Viking whose non-Anglicized name was Ganger-Hrólf) that later produced the Kings that would battle and overtake England. They were clearly Scandinavian.”

“The indigenous peoples of Iceland are not Irish. Please stop for your own sake.

You’re not very well educated on this I’m afraid, so you might want to stow the condescension.. Their men test genetically mostly on the Norse side, while their women present the Irish genetic legacy if one is present in that particular family, for the most part. It’s well documented.

I use this as an example of you just repeating what I have said pointlessly.”

I’ll keep the condescension unpacked thanks. I’ll likely need it again after this.

Where do Irish Genes come from? And who uses terms like Irish Genes when we are talking about genetic origins? There are no genes that originate in Ireland. Stop just copy pasting Google searches.

You’ve not posted a single point of proof, you’re using proof by assertion. I notice however that you glossed over and are “writing off” your incorrect comment about the Icelanders. They invaded and sat in Ireland for a long while, long evidence supported standard history, and took brides, slaves and prisoners with them to Iceland. People fucked genomes were mixed, genetic science shows that they did. Wee.

Whites come from Indo-Europeans or Chino Europeans. The Hebrew peoples before they were Hebrew had come from Central Asia to the Middle East and then on to Europe. The term Indo-European misses the middle part thats all. You’ve missed this also

Chinese are in on this now eh? Chino Europeans? So basically you took my “Korea” comment and agreed and amplified. Astounding.

If “I missed it” so did the lot of ethno-liguists, archeologists and cultural scientists. Apparently you have the key that nobody, including well studied scholars, posses.

But I digress.

You know nothing about the Indo-European migration, nothing about the development of the cultures and especially languages, nothing about archaeological evidence, zero about linguistics and language development across time and with respect to competing cultures, and you’ve made a vital error in equating Indo-Europeans with a Semitic Afro-Asian culture and people and now, I can’t believe I’m typing this “Chino Europeans” with no real connections outside of trade, and even that not until latter days.

Red pill means proof. Telling me “research this” when in fact I have and find nothing to back up your claim, is silly. You made the assertions, back them up with evidence. Pony up with verifiable facts, or leave the bar.

Nope. And I won’t be either. I’m just telling you how it is and correcting you. Go research it yourself – start with the Old Testament.

“I notice however that you glossed over and are “writing off” your incorrect comment about the Icelanders.”

I’ve noticed you have led the topic very far from my pointing out that the Swede’s are not genetically any better, for which you present as proof word’s to the tune of “I’ve been there and seen it with my own eyes”.

You lost credibility with me then, I was not Beta enough to say it as you did, but at that point it this was clearly not a misunderstanding on your behalf and more a philosophy based on very selective information with the aim of propping up your own racial insecurities.

I’m not going to keep pointing out and explaining all the flaws in your tangent arguments either, so I rhetorically asked what genes originate in Ireland. I notice however that you glossed over accounting for this incorrect argument about Icelanders and genetics in general.

“Chinese are in on this now eh? Chino Europeans? So basically you took my “Korea” comment and agreed and amplified. Astounding.”

No Chino European is a term I have invented as far as I know not that I care. I figured that you would have the common sense to understand what I have taught you here – which is important – so I also described a defining characteristic of this distinctive group of hairless bodies and straight hair in case you needed the prompt. This is not history you will learn in college. And remember, what we ‘know’ changes with every discovery – but the Bible had it all and doesn’t change.

I have no idea what the ‘korea comment’ refers to.

“If “I missed it” so did the lot of ethno-liguists, archeologists and cultural scientists. Apparently you have the key that nobody, including well studied scholars, posses.”

Are those your fields of study?

Interesting. So these fields do not understand something. So it must not exist I guess…

“But I digress.”

In the midst of the second digression yes you do.

“Red pill means proof.”

No it doesn’t it means seeing what’s really at work.

“You know nothing about the Indo-European migration, nothing about the development of the cultures and especially languages, nothing about archaeological evidence, zero about linguistics and language development across time and with respect to competing cultures, and you’ve made a vital error in equating Indo-Europeans with a Semitic Afro-Asian culture and people and now, I can’t believe I’m typing this “Chino Europeans” with no real connections outside of trade, and even that not until latter days.”

Use your etymology interest to discover where the names Scotia and Gael come from.

Yes, I have. They proceed from either direct Gaelic or pre-Gaelic celts (Picts, Brythonic celts), with some names that may have roots that pre-date Indo-European occupation (paleolithic through mid neolithic).

Gael comes from godelic (rough spelling), which is what they call their language. Scotia comes from Greek “Scotos” meaning dark, due to the dark dank mists of their homeland, which the Latins borrowed with Scotti, hence the name of Scotland.

If you haven’t undertaken some SERIOUS study of the Bible you are missing one of the most important historical records of man and his origins and movements that we have.

Whose only reference to Indo-European people are in the form of discussing the Romans and to a lesser extent the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty ruling over of Egypt and the Phoenicians (Carthage). If I missed a few outliers, I can assure you, they were not the “Lost Indo-European Hebrews”.

I did forget the Greeks, insofar as Saul/Paul is concerned. Remembered that by the time I got to the gym, heh. The Egyptian dynasty folks were Greek, but another class entirely.

Yeah, I’ve read the Bible. Couldn’t find a single verse mentioning how the pre Bronze Age Indo-Europeans managed to develop the proto-celtic language, indigenous to European development at the time, then managed to ditch the whole culture, run to the middle east/Israel, set up a culture without any language continuity disruption for a few centuries, then run back and continue development into the Iron Age all the while maintaining cultural artifact generation in Europe and leaving none behind in the Semitic areas. Weird, I know, right?

No you haven’t read the Bible. If you read the Bible properly, you will learn about more than just the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.

You have not read the Old Testament nor made any serious study of it.

“Yeah, I’ve read the Bible. Couldn’t find a single verse mentioning how the pre Bronze Age Indo-Europeans managed to develop the proto-celtic language, indigenous to European development at the time, then managed to ditch the whole culture, run to the middle east/Israel, set up a culture without any language continuity disruption for a few centuries, then run back and continue development into the Iron Age all the while maintaining cultural artifact generation in Europe and leaving none behind in the Semitic areas. Weird, I know, right?”

lol @ those wankers who wanted to ban you for winning. if I was in their place, I would either improve in order to shaft you or quit participating if I felt I just was not good enough. everyone has their own talents, its just a shame that society tends to think that one is better than another. we’re all the same in the eyes of God. clearly, the inferiority complex is strong with those people.

I’d just quit while I’m ahead anyway. They can play their games… after all, once you’ve mastered something, what point is there to continue unless there is something that you’re still getting out of it?

“If you are strong yourself, you would not want to involuntarily donate the fruits of your labor to those who are weak, especially if they are outside of your tribe, meaning that average or below average individuals naturally gravitate towards liberalism.”

This is why a democracy where merit is not valued will collapse. There would be no incentives to do better. Society as a whole will not advance. The societies that do advance will overtake those that do not.

Excellent article Roosh. What I’ve come to realize is that progressivism is the ideology of losers. Think about it…ever wonder why they harp on “equality” so much? If you are the person that was never the proverbial quarterback or, better yet, someone that couldn’t even get on the team then being “equal” is very appealing because you don’t have to feel so sorry about yourself any longer. Heck, “officially” there is absolutely NO difference between you and the starting QB at USC.

And this is where we start seeing the La-La Land come into focus. Because, like it or not, life is basically making it sometimes and other times not making. Its about watching one person and, all their faults, breeze into certain things when you struggle and seemingly are less at fault than them – or so you convinced yourself. The trouble is, gentlemen, that even ROK members and conservatives are no strangers to these feelings. That’s the rub and that’s why its so darn pervasive. Things like good parenting and a good religion steward a person to navigate these very complex emotions. Make no mistake about it, this is a daunting process and, with emphasis, its easy to go astray. After all, the easier path of least resistance is to succumb to jealousy, envy, spite. Its a lot easier to say, well its because so and so has “blank” that it wasn’t me instead of doing the truly cathartic exercise of what, if anything, can I do to improve.The sad part is our society, its culture and zeitgeist, is now focused on the first part of that last sentence. And when you have single parents and persecution of religion et al, then the process to rear a person through the channels of spite etc, is all the more difficult if not improbable. And so the leftist multiple.

“While I would in no way assert that American conservatives (Republicans)..”

You’re confusing the two Roosh. The Republicans hate us.

From link: The Chamber of Commerce has reportedly budgeted $100 million to destroy the Tea Party this election cycle and news of the chamber’s plans came not-so-coincidentally days after House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) announced that he would be resigning from Congress.”

From my personal experience, nearly all feminists tend to have that trademark “look” to them that sets them apart from other, more rationally-minded women. Things like excess weight, butch haircuts, masculine facial structure, bizarrely-colored hair, and that stuck-up, snotty look on their faces are all dead giveaways. For me at least, identifying the feminist in a crowd isn’t too hard. A very small minority of feminists I have come across are attractive, however, and these ones tend to actually be the most dangerous as men are more inclined to listen to them and less likely to stand up to their nonsense.

I know a lot of very attractive “liberal” and “conservative” women. I think this is a bad filter. In general talking politics with women is a guarantee you will not get laid. Nothing turns a women on like a lively discussion of the second amendment or modern welfare.
I do advise filtering out obvious blue hair dye wack jobs or other obvious indications of damaged goods. In these cases I don’t know what their politics are, because I don’t care.

Actually chicks dig if they figure out that you carry guns. Don’t do a 2nd dissertation with them, but “Yeah, I carry a .45” and leave it at that. That whole “he can make some serious violence” thing in their head goes into overtime, producing wetness.

I have CCW and basically no one knows I am armed, what I have in my personal armory or that I even have weapons. I can recall many conversations with women where the left wing assumption that anyone with a gun is a mass murderer, has no training and will shoot everyone including them-self, or will give a loaded weapon to a 4 year old was tossed around with lots of head nodding. I think most women can’t get over differences in political opinion easily, especially if they have only known you for a short time. Best to play other games to get head.

As TheHammer mentions, I did note “if she figures it out”. I carry concealed in the small of my back as it’s far more comfortable than the side, and since I make holsters by hand I have the holster set for correct hand draw from the back. She reaches around to do a gentle pat on the small of the back and encounters steel, I throw out my quip and drop it. Eyes gleam and smiles go far and wide on her face. Textbook.

I also open carry a lot, so there’s no need to “discover” they just openly get hot and I don’t say a word nor even acknowledge that I have a gun unless she says something (which, almost always, she will).

Yep. My favorite is when you are carrying and she sits in your lap and mistakingly finds it. I have yet to have a woman actually get angry that I’m carrying a gun. No matter how much gun control diatribe they spew they definitely get turned on by it.

“While I would in no way assert that American conservatives (Republicans) are winners, or even true conservatives”

I see what you’re getting at, but, this is in reference to the current GOP and “conservative” or neo-conservative movement. Its important to note that the GOP is currently in a state of turmoil – ref john boerners departure and the popular emergence of Donald Trump. Nonetheless, conservative ideology is the place, politically for winners as described above. But, it may seem confusing because politically we seem to be losing. Ah, well, its like this…we’re no longer a Constitutional Republic. I say were closer to a Oligarchy, but very tellingly, “they” say we are a democracy. And that means mob rule and that means losers outnumber winners. Only 11 men start in football, only 30% make it through BUDs, only the top of the class at the top schools make it into Goldman Sach’s Investment Banking division, only a 1/3rd (close to 30 btw) make it through Marine OCS. Starting to see it yet? Run the numbers, not of the winners but of the losers. Big, right? Chances are you won’t make it through BUDs or work at Goldman etc, etc, etc. When you center a society on “grievances” and projecting your faults by blaming others this is the politics you get. And with the domination of politics means the fucking power to create policy! Oh, and to win is much harder to lose. And, as we keep seeing in the U.S., people want, pardon, demand the easy way out. And its especially sad because it seems there are now people that would otherwise be winners who are now identifying as losers because of, get this, its fashionable and, of course, they’re fucking lazy. That leaves a lot of envy and jealousy that can be stirred up. And that’s just what academics and race or sex or sexuality baiters do. Also, democrats offer something the republicans, however perverse they’ve become, really can’t and that is the platform to air their grievances, make demands and, importantly, to see results. Its a carrot game and as long as this is the american tradition republicans stand no chance. Look at women, over the past few decades women have swarmed the workforce. How did that happen? Government mandate – you have to fucking hire women, and queers, and this and that and…its but one of the many carrots they hand out. But, there again, is a key difference. A person on their own can earn his way through STEM in school, work his ass off and get a degree. That’s the polar opposite of a board of women’s studies professors making it so that a certain kind of person must be included and must have degrees! Which one of those operates under a loser prerogative and which one operates under a winner? Finally, the republicans, at least, at their roots, supports the rugged I’ll take on and do it myself individuality that demands taking responsibility for one’s actions, which in turn believes in objective morality such as keeping what you earn and not stealing etc. These are very noble things, so, if republicans are “losing” its not that we are “losers”, rather, understand our politically situation and realize that even though the losers have won the whole country is actually losing because we pander to the losers of society. Shit, notice the “heroes” we’re suppose to look up too? bruce fucking jenner?

The game where you kept winning, I don’t know what it is but I believe the rules of games are that if one player smashes the win then the room is his. The new rule then is ‘HMR’ or ‘he makes the rules now’. Things get fun. New rules like a rotating hot potatoe game rule where hotties remove an article of clothing or be outed. Whatever floats. Singing on one foot, whatever new rules keep the spin. No prodigy should be shot down. The ‘shooters’ would literally EAT YOU if conditions permitted.

I became hard core anti-liberal when….
1)I learned about gender studies radfems pushing anti-due process. (My son is in college and fortunately our state, I believe, requires a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.
2)Liberals started talking more and more about eliminating 2nd AMENDMENT.
3)I started taking my son to the shooting range as a hobby

It is funny how gardening and meditation were something I started out doing because I saw it as a leftist thing and over the years I came to see it as a right wing. It did not occur to me at the time that a darwinistic leftist will reject the spirit and favor GMO’s (as opposed to holding nature sacred.) And will not really see meditation as anything more than balancing brain chemicals in his monkey meat mind.

I still vote for dems in my state to protect teacher tenure, but I loathe the left..

Actually, it is only teacher tenure that allows some veterans no resist being turned into robots by common core and Bill Gates backed reforms. This is especially important in unviersities. Watch Darrell Hamamoto. PC establishment wants him fired for teaching courses on NWO.

If you’re not a winner, you will not support an ideology which allows winners to keep the bulk of their winnings.

Winners and winnings. That is the language of redistributionists. It is the reduction of earnings to winnings. The reduction of hard work to luck. You have winnings when you win at roulette, not because you’ve learned how to do something that society values well.

Which gets me to the other point I want to make, the distortion of what society values. This society now values professional athletes and politicians more often than anything else. There’s the real ideological problem, the shift in what this society values.

A lot of people see ties between certain social and political movements (such as feminism, multiculturalism, soviet communism etc) with Jewish interests. For example some say that multiculturalism stems from Jews wanting laws in place which allow them to easily integrate and manipulate environments to their benefit.

Personally, I don’t think it’s only Jews who do this… although some people believe that because debating Jewish interests specifically is often questioned, suppressed or disrupted (even outlawed in some cases), there must be some truth to the conspiracies of people at the top being Jewish, or “Zionists”.

Other people are straight up angry because of greater economic, social and material losses so they need a target to blame and openly voice their concerns without worry of retribution from hit squads which come in the form of media smearing, internet attacks (ROK’s ongoing ddos attacks for example), legal action (using anti-semitism/hate laws) and in some cases even action from actual Mossad thugs.

Damn right Insightful article. When you gain some value with hard work (appeareance, money, social position…) you don’t wanna share benefits with people who will not do the same to get at the same level. I think it’s like a kind of tao rule.

Men can be ugly to women for a variety of reasons, that doesn’t make them liberal. some of the most conservative men I know are hardworking blue collar types that are slim, not gym rats, short and have modest incomes. I’ve never seen any of them take up liberal politics or SJW causes. Why? Because they work for a living and realize life isn’t fair. Ugly to women, since they don’t fit in that 6 ft or above requirement, 100k plus income a year, spend 6 hours a day int he gym.. then yes. Liberal? Not in the slightest.

Dumbasses, it’s conservatives who are fat, not liberals. Yeah, the loudest feminists tend to be fat, but let’s look at liberal bastions like NYC, San Fran, etc. Or THE ENTIRE CONTINENT OF EUROPE. THEIR POPULATIONS ARE THIN compared to fat-ass, bible-belt conservative BBQ country. CONSERVATIVES are the fat ones, you idiots.

I’ve never really heard of China being referred to as progressive. Your average person in the street tends to be apolitical, but they value hard work, tradition, family, sexual moderation and such just like American conservatives.

Well it is. Tradition? China? Read a book bro. No nation is abandoning its old ways in favor of the new faster than China. Your information and your understanding of the terms you throw around (conservative) are critically flawed.

You think gays are gross, and the Chinese thing gays are gross, and you identify as a conservative, so the Chinese must be conservative. That’s what you’re thinking, right? That’s not how it works.

I don’t think China is rapidly abandoning “traditional” things like hard work, family and sexual moderation. You know, it those kinds of things that are crucial for China to ascend economically. “Old ways” are certainly being changed, such as, driving, flying, ordering out, vacations, cellular devices etc, but, that in no way means they’re relinquishing things like family moderation etc.

Its as though you liberal progressives actually believe that its your perverted social policies driving economic progress. Nothing could be further from the truth. To build a skyscraper or design a better gizmo takes hard work and dedication. It does not require being buttfucked or having an erotic enema administer or eating shit. Those kinds of things, sorry to tell you, are not imperative to the forward movement of posterity. In fact…those are gross and impulsive excesses more akin to things like drug and alcohol abuse, so, to presume that sodomy is making the world better is patently insane.

China has been “progressive” in the sense of changes made since about 1993, but not “progressive” in the political sense that it is used in the west. Similarly, Chinese “conservatives” are known in the west as “Communists”. Given that I have lived in the west and now live in China, I can understand why you have your terms backwards. The terms as applied to Chinese in China are basically the opposite of the terms when used to look at someone from a western socio-political perspective.
.
The “gross” comment is gratuitous, but there are several reasons why most Chinese people are conservative in the sense I am using: they marry at a young age, clear gender roles, sanctity of marriage, economic thrift, sexual prudence, limited taxes et. al. A small but growing minority are Christians. Guns and free speech aren’t on the radar but that’s about it. There are a number of political issues dear to the hearts of western progressives that Chinese DNGAF about: global warming, baby seals and such.
.
Some of the larger cities are getting “progressive” such as Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong, Shenzhen. Smaller tourist traps such as Hainan and Xiamen are very westernized but I have not spent enough time there to figure out their women or their politics.

You know how I reached that conclusion? By going to Wal-Mart and watching the white conservative fatasses in scooters. I don’t have a solid number, but they do seen to outnumber everyone else. Also, I observed this in the Southern Bible Belt.

I’m very conservative and I never go to Walmart nor do I own a scooter. In terms of food, I buy organic, not because I want to fit in or feel superior, but to feel good. The food you presume people of walmart eat is shit and will make you sick. Any person that is aware enough will respond to this stimuli and act accordingly. And, its happening, left or right, people are generally all demanding better food versus the GMO shit they’ve been feeding us. Matter of fact The Alex Jones Show constantly features health experts and he encourages organic and home gardens etc.

I’m more or less in the middle, but on occasion I do lean a bit on the conservative side. I rarely frequent Wal-Mart except to get cheap gas. But yes, good food isn’t about political leanings, it’s about not charging people $5 for a pound of organic tomatoes. And as an American citizen who’s gone regularly gone out of country, if there’s something I’m ashamed of as an American, it’s not just the horrible food, but the perceived lack of food culture. So sad. We actually had to go across the border to Mexico to get good produce at a fair price, or at least what U.S. Customs let us bring back. And I do live in West Texas, the buckle of the Southern Bible Belt. That’s where I got my observation of Wal Mart patrons. Of course they’re as right wing as they come. Oddly enough, seeing how ROK, especially Roosh, has railed against tattooed liberal females in the past, watching tattooed women who are supposed to be conservatives walking around with horrible ink makes me laugh at the irony.

Counter-point: by every survey measure ever taken all five branches of the U.S. Military are so red they’re arterial, both officer and enlisted corps. Not exactly a bastion of fatness there either. You’ll also be pretty hard-pressed to find a liberal cop or fireman, who also are on average in significantly better shape than the general population. Same with PMC’s. Now, do these occupations require certain fitness levels as a condition of employment? Absolutely. However, there’s no draft, and you have to be in good physical shape already on the front end to join basically any military or para-military organization. This would suggest that the overwhelmingly conservative individuals who populate such organizations were maintaining healthy lifestyles on their own.
Second, let’s cut the crap of equating ‘thin’ with ‘fitness’. Sure, there’s plenty of thin effeminate men running around NY City. Your average semi-pro Rugby player could also break any one of these men in half.

Hollywood runs counter to this as you have loads of wealthy, good looking people who are mostly liberals. The libertarians and conservatives stand out due to their rarity.
.
On a personal level, I don’t make a lot of money and never have. However I have been a conservative since the age of 18 (back in the Mulroney/Reagan/Thatcher era).
.
I never polled people on their political beliefs but I can conceive of a stocky bitch in a power suit who is totally on the right wing.
.
Conservative blogger Connie Fournier is a great lady but not what you would call svelte. Similarly, Kathy Shaidle – aka Five Feet of Fury – was probably cute in her day but now past 50 she would not be considered one of the “beautiful people”. Top notch, intelligent, conservative women who are not particularly rich nor would they rate as an 8 or higher.
.
I don’t know how many exceptions prove the rule but at some point if you have enough exceptions there is probably something wrong with the rule.

” If she’s beautiful, she wants to be rightly rewarded for that beauty, and so will have more traditional beliefs where men undertake high mating investment to be with her.”
What this means is that beautiful women are more open to traditional beliefs, not that they will follow them actively. It still takes a man with the right convictions, and more realistically, a proper social environment to keep her from becoming a whore.
In the absence of these factors, a beauty will be led by society to embrace her “sexual freedom” and she may even become a feminist miniboss.

Good looking girls already have one foot on the slippery slope to whoredom because it is so easy to get what they want that way. Whether it is an alpha giving her cock on demand or a beta that slips her cash or buys her gifts, that process gives her the realization that she can use her beauty.
.
I don’t see the correlation between beauty and traditional values. If anything, it is the plain girls who need a traditional structure due to the very fact that they don’t have a lot of options. So they want to lock down a good man as soon as they can.

what kind of a dickless ego drivel is this crap.. if your not an asshole you find better people, good people of the world, avoid this ridiculous, obsequious idiot, think for yourself you’ll go farther that way.

what kind of a dickless ego drivel is this crap.. if your not an asshole
you find better people, good people of the world, avoid this
ridiculous, obsequious idiot, think for yourself you’ll go farther that
way.

In order to decide whom I read and whom I take advice from, I often judge by the quality of the person and what kind of presentation they put forth to the world, combined with the force of their arguments.

By your paragraph you seem only semi-literate and rather devoid of the rules of grammar, proper capitalization, punctuation and spelling. That I can forgive; but when you have nothing but ad hominem and spewing seething hatred, you’re not making a good case for your side of the discussion.

Facts can be wrong here, assertions challenged, and all is well and good, new understandings are found. You offer nothing but poorly worded insults and bitterness. You’ll have to understand that this doesn’t impress most of us here.

At the chance of entertaining a possible troll, you’re correct, not all Jews are leftists. No doubt about this. But equally as valid is the notion that the Jews that seem to rise to the top of the cultural and economic heap are by and large very far left, to the point where it seems like they’re betraying their own culture, religion and heritage. Take feminist writers, nearly to a woman they’re Jewish. Why? Good question. I’ve never understood rejecting one’s own cultures and traditions to that extent, personally, but that may well just be me.

Right wing Jews are easy to find in the firearm community in the U.S., I’m well aware they exist, for certain.

The reason why so many feminists might be of Jewish origin could be to do with the matriarchal passing on of a family’s name. This in anthropological terms is very rare and perhaps it gave Jewish women, historically, a more important role in the public world, especially with passing on traditions, and it conferred on them the notion of having a voice and having a say on things in the public realm. I could be completely wrong, but, it seems plausible.

That is actually very interesting to me, and something I hadn’t considered. I wonder, and I really have no idea, were Jewish women dominant brow beaters before feminism? Something I should probably research. Thank you for the new perspective.

It’s because Jewish women are controlling. That’s it, there is no vast conspiracy outside of that. Any Jew will tell you this is how they operate–nagging, whining, criticising and shaming is just part of the culture. The people putting up with it and funding it are a different story.

A lot of feminist women have been Jewish, but I’ve noticed that a disproportionately high percentage of the most prominent anti-feminist figures have also been Jewish, such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Carleton Freedman & Esther Vilar.

Five minutes of my life I will never get back. Who actually believes this shit???
Thanks to everyone else for pointing out roosh has gotten it mostly in reverse with the exception of the fatty, angry masculine feminists. Conservatives in this country are usually fat fucking pigs but they don’t really realize it because they’re surrounded by others that look the same. I forgot ROK was a site for complete losers. Only delusional haters with terribly low self esteem could nod their heads at this donkey shit.

And just for the record, I’m a 6 foot, 250 lb bodybuilder with a huge hog and I have been liberal since I was a kid. Yeah others are losing worse at life and it’s complex but a lot of times it comes down to the fact that the CARDS ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM. Something I doubt roosh and these other idiots would never understand. #feelthebernfaggots.

Lol. Truth hurts, Kizman. There are always many exceptions and politics are complex. But to characterize this in the way Roosh has was not only misleading but generally dead wrong. The last two most attractive women I dated were strong democrats, but weren’t militant feminists. The main mistake Roosh made was not drawing these distinctions. And in Europe, yes most of the hot women will want a man who is masculine, but they don’t want some idiot from the golden dawn or a slouch complaining about misandry and the poor Muslims. These are quite unattractive traits for a man to take on. ROK is full of this crap however.

My dear confused friend, you are estimating that the rest of my traits of SMV are not developed from what, that I think people born into poverty might deserve a bit more help than your or any of these other “red pillers” middle class asses. It’s complex and you naturally do have those fatty, bitter feminazis and weak, white knight feminist men. But from my experience most beautiful women I’ve known would still be characterized as moderately progressive even if they’re looking for a man with traditional traits. From Russia to Colombia to Europe and America. Flaming left wingers, no. Besides, I’m originally from the south where the conservatives are insanely large blobs of pink piggy flesh screaming about their guns and Jesus and the Islamification of America. Obsese weak minded nut jobs, in summary.

I know plenty of conservative women here in the States but they are not particularly attractive. I think Roosh’s article here makes the wrong generalizations. In my experience travelling regularly across the US, its the exact opposite.

Based on personal experience and simple observation, most pretty women don’t have to think critically, they get by on their looks alone and they’re very impressionable..The only thing left to strive towards is staying fashionable. Fashionable in today’s sense= all things liberal.

Raw beauty is pretty simple: symmetry, clear skin, proportion. The only way to muck that up is by making oneself unattractive by dressing like Marilyn Manson or something extreme. On the other hand, if you don’t have symmetry and proportion, you may have great style and finesse but that can’t hide asymmetrical or disproportionate features, it just makes you well groomed and well put together. Obesity is an epidemic in this country and it effects people across socio-economic and political spectrums. Its hard to say what exactly Roosh means by “conservative” or “liberal”. Is he conservative? How does globetrotting with the aim to get laid by multiple women largely unknown to him square with “conservative values”?

I travel throughout America’s health conscious and spirituality conscious circles and they tend to be fit, attractive, liberals. The spirituality part is why this statement is not true, ” If you are strong yourself, you would not want to involuntarily donate the fruits of your labor to those who are weak, especially if they are outside of your tribe, “… its called “compassion”.

Leftists are conflict-avoidant people who in a fight or flight situation would always choose the later. It is a character flaw that can have multiple roots, as an abusive and neglecting parents that harmed their condifence maybe, and therefore hurting their problem solving abilities too. Or maybe a learned behaviour due to being bullied at school. Who knows perhaps it is just in our genes. But some of the leftists are physically attractive, there are a lot of factors involved to oversimplify so much.

In the end, those inabilities to deal with setbacks, specially the emotional ones, are the reason why a leftist solution to a social problem will allways be the same: let the government deal with it. They want others to fight for them, they don’t want to suffer or make sacrifices. On the other hand, conservatives and libertarians will talk about individual responsibility in a similar situation.

Also, it explains the guilt and shaming that they use in their debating tactics. Passive-aggressive and manipulative behaviour is the mark of the leftist.

As my father told me once talking about this, there are two types of people:
– Those who if they make a mistake, will learn from it an try to improve theirselves.
– Those who if they make a mistake, will blame the world and try to make the world change for them.

Well I’m not from the U.S., but I experienced something similar, when I was in my late teens early 20s, I could very accurately be described as a liberal leftist… I was broke, ugly and had no confidence.

In my late 20s and now that I am in my early 30s, I have money, I look the best I’ve ever looked and I have great confidence …. and over time, others have begun to describe me as strongly supporting right wing philosophy… and it’s true , I now oppose leftism.

I didn’t even realize when this happened because it occurred so gradually and naturally. The thing is, the article seems to hit the nail on the head, I “felt” life was unfair when I was at the bottom (aka whining), but now I realize it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. I was restricting my own growth by, rather than fixing my problems just whining and expecting them to be solved through external factors. Ugh, anyway I concur 100% with the article, at least as I have lived it and observed others as well.

0

0

Top 5 Most Popular Posts

Submit an article for ROK and get paid

For the month of January, we are running a promotion where we will pay you in Litecoin cryptocurrency for any article of yours that we publish. If you have something to say to your fellow man, now is a great time to do it. Click here to learn all the details.

ROK Donation Drive

If you’re getting value from ROK, consider making a donation through the Roosh Booster Club to help us publish better articles and compensate our writers. Your donation is crucial in the face of Silicon Valley’s cockblocking campaign against us. Click here to learn full details.

Flagship ROK Shirt Has Landed

After many months of delay, we have launched Red Kings Shop to provide you with ROK apparel that will Kratomize your testosterone levels, massively increase the size of your penis, and make you the most beloved shitlord in your city. Click here for launch details.